Why do ethanol proponents want to destroy the environment?

Question

Before:

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1398938...

After:

http://www.nctc.net/hazard/photo/plantin...

Answer 1

Ok, neither photo appears.  Both pages come up that they don't exist.  Regardless, I don't see how ethanol is going to destroy the environment.  

Ethanol is one of the best tools we have to fight air pollution from vehicles. Ethanol contains 35% oxygen. Adding oxygen to fuel results in more complete fuel combustion, thus reducing harmful tailpipe emissions. Ethanol also displaces the use of toxic gasoline components such as benzene, a carcinogen. Ethanol is non-toxic, water soluble and quickly biodegradable.

FACT: Ethanol is a renewable fuel produced from plants, unlike petroleum-based fossil fuels that have a limited supply and are the major contributor of carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas.

The ethanol production process represents a carbon cycle, where plants absorb carbon dioxide during growth, "recycling" the carbon released during fuel combustion.  Since the United States currently pays farmers NOT to grow crops, that money can be saved.  Simply allow those farmers to grow corn for ethanol.

FACT: The use of 10% ethanol blends reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 18-29% compared with conventional gasoline, according to Argonne National Laboratory.

In 2006, ethanol use in the U.S. reduced C02-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 8 million tons, equal to removing the annual emissions of more than 1.21 million cars from the road (Argonne's GREET 1.7 Model).

Answer 2

I dont know that they actually want to destroy the environment, but it is pure economics.  If demand for corn increase, then so does the price of corn.  This results in higher profits for corn farmers.  Also, some kinds of ethanol are efficient enough that they could work as an alternative energy source such as sugar cane or hemp.

Answer 3

We dont, no more than solar power proponents do.

Many of the early solar power cells took more power to make than they would ever produce.

Same thing with ethanol. Some of the early techniques were less than efficient.

Currently corn ethanol produces on average about 2 times the input energy, sugarcane is 10 times as much energy produced as output.

Ethanol is part of a solution to global warming.

The problem with ethanol is political, since some people on the right side of the political debate have suggested it is a partial solution, then the extreme left insist that it is not a soution regardless of the science. There are closed minded people on both sides, from the right and left, but if we are going to look for solutions to global warming we have to at least start a debate.

Denial of the problem of global warming, by some extreme right wing individuals is no worse than denial of solutions such as ethanol or nuclear power by some on the left.

Answer 4

Because they don't like dead links?

Answer 5

Sorry Lady D, but the answer to our problems is not ethanol.

Unfortunately corn ethanol takes much more energy to produce than it is worth. It is better to just burn gass than produce and use ethanol. Not to mention the fact that your using a food supply to meet our oil addiction. not to mention the additional fertilizer runnof as a result of growing 50 times more corn. not to mention while it takes more dirty energy to produce the ethanole (which pollutes) then you burn the ethanol and it pollutes, so your doing more harm than good.

The real answer to your transportation is a combination of hydrogen, electric and solar.

Answer 6

I have read the reports on the web about ethanol. It definitely sounds like it is going to do more damage than good for the environment. Where are we going to get all the corn, soybeans, etc.. for these plants. Where I live we have 5 ethanol plants within 90 minutes of each other. This seems to be vast overkill. How long until we feel the ripple effect on other prices. Meat, eggs, bread and other staples that rely on the crops that are now going to the ethanol plants. Looks like we have once again opened a Pandora's Box thinking we were going to be saved..

Answer 7

Lady D with all due respects you have not researched you answer where it matters



The irony here is that the growing eagerness to slow climate change by using biofuels and planting millions of trees for carbon credits has resulted in new major causes of deforestation, say activists. And that is making climate change worse because deforestation puts far more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire world's fleet of cars, trucks, planes, trains and ships combined.

"Biofuels are rapidly becoming the main cause of deforestation in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia and Brazil," said Simone Lovera, managing coordinator of the Global Forest Coalition, an environmental NGO based in Asunción, Paraguay. "We call it 'deforestation diesel'," Lovera told IPS.

Oil from African palm trees is considered to be one of the best and cheapest sources of biodiesel and energy companies are investing billions into acquiring or developing oil-palm plantations in developing countries. Vast tracts of forest in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and many other countries have been cleared to grow oil palms. Oil palm has become the world's number one fruit crop, well ahead of bananas.

Biodiesel offers many environmental benefits over diesel from petroleum, including reductions in air pollutants, but the enormous global thirst means millions more hectares could be converted into monocultures of oil palm. Getting accurate numbers on how much forest is being lost is very difficult.

The FAO's State of the World's Forests 2007 released last week reports that globally, net forest loss is 20,000 hectares per day -- equivalent to an area twice the size of Paris. However, that number includes plantation forests, which masks the actual extent of tropical deforestation, about 40,000 hectares (ha) per day, says Matti Palo, a forest economics expert who is affiliated with the Tropical Agricultural Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE) in Costa Rica.

"The half a million ha per year deforestation of Mexico is covered by the increase of forests in the U.S., for example," Palo told IPS.

National governments provide all the statistics, and countries like Canada do not produce anything reliable, he said. Canada has claimed no net change in its forests for 15 years despite being the largest producer of pulp and paper. "Canada has a moral responsibility to tell the rest of the world what kind of changes have taken place there," he said.

Plantation forests are nothing like natural or native forests. More akin to a field of maize, plantation forests are hostile environments to nearly every animal, bird and even insects. Such forests have been shown to have a negative impact on the water cycle because non-native, fast-growing trees use high volumes of water. Pesticides are also commonly used to suppress competing growth from other plants and to prevent disease outbreaks, also impacting water quality.

Plantation forests also offer very few employment opportunities, resulting in a net loss of jobs. "Plantation forests are a tremendous disaster for biodiversity and local people," Lovera said. Even if farmland or savanna are only used for oil palm or other plantations, it often forces the local people off the land and into nearby forests, including national parks, which they clear to grow crops, pasture animals and collect firewood. That has been the pattern with pulp and timber plantation forests in much of the world, says Lovera.

Ethanol is other major biofuel, which is made from maize, sugar cane or other crops. As prices for biofuels climb, more land is cleared to grow the crops. U.S. farmers are switching from soy to maize to meet the ethanol demand. That is having a knock on effect of pushing up soy prices, which is driving the conversion of the Amazon rainforest into soy, she says. Meanwhile rich countries are starting to plant trees to offset their emissions of carbon dioxide, called carbon sequestration. Most of this planting is taking place in the South in the form of plantations, which are just the latest threat to existing forests. "Europe's carbon credit market could be disastrous," Lovera said.

The multi-billion-euro European carbon market does not permit the use of reforestation projects for carbon credits. But there has been a tremendous surge in private companies offering such credits for tree planting projects. Very little of this money goes to small land holders, she says. Plantation forests also contain much less carbon, notes Palo, citing a recent study that showed carbon content of plantation forests in some Asian tropical countries was only 45 percent of that in the respective natural forests. Nor has the world community been able to properly account for the value of the enormous volumes of carbon stored in existing forests.

One recent estimate found that the northern Boreal forest provided 250 billion dollars a year in ecosystem services such as absorbing carbon emissions from the atmosphere and cleaning water. The good news is that deforestation, even in remote areas, is easily stopped. All it takes is access to some low-cost satellite imagery and governments that actually want to slow or halt deforestation. Costa Rica has nearly eliminated deforestation by making it illegal to convert forest into farmland, says Lovera.

Paraguay enacted similar laws in 2004, and then regularly checked satellite images of its forests, sending forestry officials and police to enforce the law where it was being violated. "Deforestation has been reduced by 85 percent in less than two years in the eastern part of the country," Lovera noted. The other part of the solution is to give control over forests to the local people. This community or model forest concept has proved to be sustainable in many parts of the world. India recently passed a bill returning the bulk of its forests back to local communities for management, she said.

However, economic interests pushing deforestation in countries like Brazil and Indonesia are so powerful, there may eventually be little natural forest left. "Governments are beginning to realize that their natural forests have enormous value left standing," Lovera said. "A moratorium or ban on deforestation is the only way to stop this."

This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ - International Federation of Environmental Journalists.

© 2007 IPS - Inter Press Service



Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines07/...